Drone shields versus Bomber shields (Golden Rainbow)

I have decided to compare Attack Drone shields for Fighter Plane wings versus Precision Bomber shields for Fighter Plane wings (when attacking 800 Interceptors).

I have used the game documentation to provide average estimates of the effectiveness of each weapon along with approximate ammo usage.

In computing price, I have opted to use the base price of each product, rather than the current market price... this should provide a more consistent estimate of cost.

--------

Therefore, I have found these results (please correct me if the game engine produces a radically different result):

1. FP with Drones
a. Attacker loses:
900 Drones
158 FP
2873 FP ammo
b. Defender loses:
517 Ints
3299 Int ammo

2. FP with Bombers
a. Attacker loses:
197 Bombers
3000 FP ammo
b. Defender loses:
540 Ints
3281 Int ammo

As you can see, Bomber shields make it so the FP wing can be used for 4 attacks w/o any damage to the FP. However, Drone shields allow the defense to immediately eat into the FP. In this aspect, Bomber shields are far more convenient.

Notice also, Bomber shields make it so that FP can destroy 4.45% more Ints, the equivalent of one free attack every 22.5 attacks.

1. FP with Drones
a. Value of attacker loses:
$99.78B
b. Value of defender loses:
$80.08B
c. Total difference:
$19.70B

2. FP with Bombers
a. Value of attacker loses:
$92.70B
b. Value of defender loses:
$83.00B
c. Total difference:
$9.70

As you can see, Bomber shields yield an attacker loss that is only $9.7B greater than the defender loss, while Drone shields yield an attacker loss that is $19.7B greater. This makes Bomber shields more efficient by $10B per attack from a monetary standpoint.

Therefore, Bomber shields can be used more times without resupply, require a slightly smaller number of attack to eliminate air defense, and carry a smaller loss per attack.

This is good work Scarlet but unfortunately it doesn't hold up to real fighting scenarios. On average I have found that against 800 int response the losses are as follows:

900 drones and ~125 fp with the full 800 response of ints being lost or
~225 bombers and 0 fp with the full 800 response of ints being lost

Also the ammo seems be a bit off, it is approximately 5.3 to 5.7 A2A to kill one interceptor.

Of course this also doesn't take into consideration workers or monthly costs...which is where a real difference can be made...for instance on all worlds except for FB it requires only 2 llw and 1 mlm for each drone but 28 llw and 14 mlm for each bomber. Then there is the opportunity cost of time where bombers have a huge advantage because of exactly what you have stated...you can do ~4 attacks with a bomber/fp wing and only 1 with a drone/fp wing.

Good job in putting the numbers together...based on what the docs say they seem correct, but unfortunately it just doesn't work exactly as the docs say it should.

Bombers = Flying $$$ signs. Anyway, once you factor in the loads more FP that you'll need (and lose)... the extra maintenance should be canceled out. Not to mention, bombers are far more versatile as they can be used as more than just shields.

o_0
Please note, this topic has nothing to do with my secret bomber monopoly.

Btw, in the formula: 5.3 A2A will kill .954 interceptor, and 5.7 A2A will kill 1.026 interceptor. So that part is correct, I'm not sure what you mean...

I agree with you, bombers are my preference as well. Was just pointing out that there is a little more to the equation. The versatility and time savings push it over the edge for me. I just went back to my numbers and I was incorrect about the bomber losses as well, I have an average loss of 175 PB against 800 response...so that helps too

As far as the ammo, I was referring to the 2873 FP ammo used which was probably due to the low # of ints that you were showing destroyed. The total number of A2A used should be ~4400.

Yeah, it's about 4400 a2a ammo per 800 ints. And 175 bombers sounds right.

I think the matrix has been changed at least once, and the docs not updated.

Drones or bombers, there's definitely a cost advantage to the attacker over the defender...it costs a lot more to put up 2 int wings than it does to take them down. I figure roughly twice as much.

Another important advantage of bombers is their greater range.

Absolutely, I worked those numbers yesterday and was surprised to see that it was actually cheaper on the attacker side to take down the air d...I find that somewhat odd, maybe something that should be addressed? I would think it should be at least equal cost...not really sure how to go about that because the prices are market based and it would be horrible imo to adjust the fp to int kill rate as it would just result in alot more clicking...I think we have enough clicking lol. On the flip side if you were to adjust the int kill rate on drones/bombers/fp then it is likely that drones would become completely useless in taking down air d because the fp losses would be massive.

Good point on the bomber range, another big advantage.

According to the game docs, the rate of fire is 3 FP ammo per round and 6 Int ammo per round. If I change these to 5 and 8, respectively, I get these results:

1. FP with Drones
a. Attacker loses:
900 Drones
127 FP
4444 FP ammo
b. Defender loses:
800 Ints
3097 Int ammo

2. FP with Bombers
a. Attacker loses:
183 Bombers
4444 FP ammo
b. Defender loses:
800 Ints
3050 Int ammo

This seems more accurate to your reported results, I think the Rate of Fire has simply been increased for both. As the formula predicted the ammo needed to kill an Int, I can confidently assume that accuracy and damage have remained the same.

EDIT: With the number reformed, the price advantage goes to the attacker. The advantage increases when Bombers are used.

1. FP with Drones
a. Value of attacker loses:
$108.21B
b. Value of defender loses:
$116.08B
c. Total difference:
$7.13B

2. FP with Bombers
a. Value of attacker loses:
$104.67B
b. Value of defender loses:
$115.90B
c. Total difference:
$11.23B

Those numbers look correct to me...pretty much right on to what I've experienced. Good job Scarlet

Nice job.

Total cost to defender to set up interceptor wings can be considerably higher, if one includes the full 12,000 missiles in default setting. On FB, using market, not base price, it currently works out to about $200B for 2 int wings, versus $120B for the attacker, using bombers.

I always gave my d wings 6000 ammo. No sense in giving more, if they are just going to be destroyed.

I still do understand why d air is at such a disadvantage with radar planes. I would really like for d units to be more active in the defense. Right now you can fly over my garrisons with 1000's of anti-aircraft batteries like they are not even there. They watch silently impotent while their brothers-in-arms are slaughtered.

I wish that we had control over the garrison supply levels, b/c there is no way that. they can use all of the ammo before being taken down, but alas the game gods do not allow such control.

Scarlet, Using your actual attack numbers (second set of figures you provided) I get these totals:

1. FP with Drones

a. Attacker loses:
900 Drones @ 16.25M=14.625B
127 FP @515.32M=65.405B
4444 FP ammo @ 18.91M=84.036B
Total 164.066B

b. Defender loses:
800 Ints @82.90M=66.320B
3097 Int ammo @ 4.92M=15.237B
Total Cost 81.557B

c. Total Differerence 82.509B


2. FP with Bombers

a. Attacker loses:
183 Bombers @214.58M=39.268B
4444 FP ammo @ 18.91M=84.036B
Total Cost 123.304B

b. Defender loses:
800 Ints @82.90M=63.320B
3050 Int ammo @ 4.92M=15.006B
Total Cost 78.326B

c. Total Difference 44.978B

I never considered using Bombers as fighter shields. Doen't the needed additional manpower to operate a bomber offset the monetary benefits?

IMO yes

Good for large slaves.

But not for my c3s

As I explained previously, I was using base price to calculate cost. Many factors are at play influencing the market price so I decided to ignore it. Using base price suggests that the difference is structural, but will be wrong in some situations. (i.e. Bomber market shortage with Fighter or Drone market surplus)

1. Con: Bombers use 2x the manpower an equivalent number of drones would use.
2. Pro: Bombers eliminate losses of Fighters. Thereby, requiring fewer numbers of Fighters to run a successful campaign.
3 Biased, Uneducated Opinion: I see many other uses for Bombers, and I see no other use for Drones. Therefore, Bombers maximize efficiency by being able to fulfill multiple roles.